Facebook Removed Seven Million Posts In Second Quarter For False Coronavirus Info (reuters.com) 169
Facebook said on Tuesday it removed 7 million posts in the second quarter for sharing false information about the novel coronavirus, including content that promoted fake preventative measures and exaggerated cures. Reuters reports: It released the data as part of its sixth Community Standards Enforcement Report, which it introduced in 2018 along with more stringent decorum rules in response to a backlash over its lax approach to policing content on its platforms. The world's biggest social network said it would invite proposals from experts this week to audit the metrics used in the report, beginning in 2021. It committed to the audit during a July ad boycott over hate speech practices.
The company removed about 22.5 million posts with hate speech on its flagship app in the second quarter, a dramatic increase from 9.6 million in the first quarter. It attributed the jump to improvements in detection technology. It also deleted 8.7 million posts connected to "terrorist" organizations, compared with 6.3 million in the prior period. It took down less material from "organized hate" groups: 4 million pieces of content, compared to 4.7 million in the first quarter. The company does not disclose changes in the prevalence of hateful content on its platforms, which civil rights groups say makes reports on its removal less meaningful.
The company removed about 22.5 million posts with hate speech on its flagship app in the second quarter, a dramatic increase from 9.6 million in the first quarter. It attributed the jump to improvements in detection technology. It also deleted 8.7 million posts connected to "terrorist" organizations, compared with 6.3 million in the prior period. It took down less material from "organized hate" groups: 4 million pieces of content, compared to 4.7 million in the first quarter. The company does not disclose changes in the prevalence of hateful content on its platforms, which civil rights groups say makes reports on its removal less meaningful.
7mil Not enough (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe it's time (Score:2, Flamebait)
Maybe it's time for Facebook to become a public utility like power or water instead of a for-profit company. They arguably have a monopoly on what they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I would argue that it's become a common carrier, in communications terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it hasn't. That term is reserved for telcos, ISPs, and delivery services (where the term originated.)
Facebook is none of those things.
Re:Maybe it's time (Score:4)
The internet isn't even a public utility yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Would becoming a utility be a reward?
Re: (Score:2)
The internet isn't a monopoly. Yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook isn't a cancer. It is blood. It carries around whatever is in the body. You don't make fuckwits go away, you don't eliminate conspiracies, you don't stamp out hate or magically get rid of advertising, political meddling or privacy invasions just by taking down one service which provides avenues for people to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Maybe it's time for Facebook to become a public utility like power or water ..."
Power and water I need and use. Facebook I do not.
Problem: the 'truth' isn't always obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Several months ago it was believed that a person who was asymptomatic could not be a spreader of COVID. That was impossible according to the experts. Now it has been discovered that in fact some people can co-exist with the virus, basically they are virus factories while not experiencing any symptoms.
The 'truth' didn't change, it just wasn't all known and probably still isn't. AND IF YOU AREN'T PERCEIVED AS AN APPROPRIATE SOURCE OF TRUTH YOU CAN HAVE NO VOICE.
Not sure if that's good or bad. It is what it is.
Re:Problem: the 'truth' isn't always obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Theres a difference. When someone adjusts their position based on new information they are still on the side of truth, when some whackjob points to old discredited information as gospel and reshares it in a current context then it is no longer truth, it is a lie and a sign of ideology rather than science.
Re: (Score:3)
Several months ago it was believed that a person who was asymptomatic could not be a spreader of COVID. That was impossible according to the experts.
Find me an example of where experts said it was impossible. Not "unlikely", or "unexpected", or "not thought to be a problem", but "impossible".
I'm deeply skeptical of your claim.
Re: (Score:3)
Several months ago it was believed that a person who was asymptomatic could not be a spreader of COVID.
I don't recall anyone having said that. I have quite a few friends at the CDC and they certainly weren't saying that internally.
Present them for public review. (Score:2)
Tell the authors (Score:2)
That's not Facebook's job. People can post that stuff on their own websites, though. You should encourage people who have had their material removed from Facebook to post it somewhere else.
List of the False Preventative Measures/Cures (Score:2)
FB rem M7 posts in 1/4 sec (Score:2)
Quite a few of those weren't false. (Score:2)
Rather they were memes making fun of the false claims and the idiots who share them.
Facebook's algorithm, quite literally, has no sense of humor at all, and can't distinguish between actual satire vs actually fake news.
Re: (Score:2)
Only 1 million of the removed posts contained WrongThink® wholly provided by US board certified physicians.
How much of that were posts regarding Demon Sperm and Alien DNA?
Re: (Score:2)
Damn and here I was thinking this doctor was talking about Legend of the Overfiend. Nope, it's just about dream sex. It would be much funnier if she liked those movies (or at least watched and referenced them).
Re: (Score:3)
You tell us. You're into some kinky shit, but as long as you're not harming others, good for you. Personally I hope you're not my neighbor.
Oh, I wasn't talking about me, I was discussing the POTUS and his favorite doctor:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news... [msn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The info on BCG was an interesting read. It looks like a promising treatment. The rest of your post, which seems to boil down to "screw science, it takes too long!" makes no sense.
7 separate countries [wikipedia.org] are running trials on its effectiveness. What exactly is your hypothesis here? That there's some global conspiracy, involving numerous independent research groups, to not find an effective vaccine?
Re: (Score:2)
Placebo affect is a feast or famine affect, no stress you body and mind are content to release stored resources to maxmise good health, stressed the body goes in famine mode and withholds the release of resources just in case
You're puny brain doesn't compute the evolutionary improbability of the placebo effect working this way.
FUCKING BLOODY OBVIOUS
Yeah, that's exactly where we went wrong over a 100 years ago. Everything was 'FUCKING BLOODY OBVIOUS'. Until it wasn't, of course.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good news, everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the CDC is being slightly silly regarding the use within your household household bit, but not for the reasons you think. Using cloth masks in your own home is probably almost useless (and this has actually been shown in at least one study) because the contamination level in the home of a sick person or while tending to a sick patient is too high for low-filtration masks to do any good. But using them in an area that is mostly uncontaminated, (e.g. the grocery store) can actually be highly effective.
Remember that there's a threshold involved in getting sick. If you get a tiny dose (below the threshold), your body stomps the virus into the ground so quickly that you probably don't get sick at all. If you get a larger dose (above the threshold), you get noticeably sick. If you get a huge dose, you probably die.
In a hospital, where the staff are being constantly bombarded by the virus, even 95% filtration may not be enough to avoid getting sick, because 5% of the virus may still put them over that threshold. Of course in those situations, the difference between 95% filtration and 0% filtration may still make the difference between being above the "you get sick" threshold and being above the "you die" threshold, but 3% filtration probably won't do much at all.
However, when you're in an area where the virus is relatively rare, that isn't true. Even in the most cynical model, you would be reducing the amount of virus emissions by 3% at the source, followed by another 3% at the destination. If the average amount of a virus floating around in the air is such that breathing for one minute puts you above the threshold, then a 6% reduction means you can spend about four extra seconds picking up that extra container of yogurt without getting sick. That translates to a noticeable difference in the number of people getting sick.
This is not to say that a mask that filters only 3% of particles will keep you from getting sick. It won't, statistically speaking. But in aggregate, it will keep some people from getting sick, because of the law of truly large numbers: given a large enough number of samples, even very rare events occur frequently. When you live in a country that has O(50,000) new coronavirus cases every day, a .001% reduction in infections would reduce the case count by one every two days, which at an R0 of 2.5, translates to 2.5 fewer cases over the next two weeks stemming from that first case, plus proportionally fewer cases from the case missed at day 3, day 5, day 7, day 9, day 11, and day 13, resulting in about 10.5 fewer cases over those two weeks. In weeks 3 and 4, it's 37 fewer. In weeks 5 and 6, it's 103 fewer cases. And so on. (No, I will not show my work; yes, my numbers are probably inaccurate; the point is still valid either way.)
And also, that assumes a very cynical model for the reduction in emissions from a sick person, which I think is probably vastly underestimating the impact. The study you were talking about in the hospital involved using masks on people who were NOT sick. The main benefit in a pandemic comes from using masks on people who ARE sick. All it takes is one sneeze to propel virus particles a long way, and even a cheap mask with poor filtration still blocks a large percentage of the air volume, which means it doesn't spread those virus particles nearly as far. That's just basic physics. So all things being equal, fewer people will get sick if everyone wears masks. A LOT fewer.
This is why it is so vitally important to truly understand what a study is actually telling you; without understanding the nature of the environment in which a study was performed and understanding how that environment affects the spread of disease, you cannot possibly hope to understand whether those results can usefully be applied in a different environment.
To use an automotive analogy, your conclusion is a bit like reading a study that shows that lap belts are ineffective in 200 MPH collisions on race tracks, and concluding that seat belt laws cannot possibly save lives. By trying to apply the results of a study performed in one environment to a completely different environment, you reach conclusions that are laughably wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Both tight-fitting cloth masks, laundered to hospital standards every 4 or 8 hours, with 3% filtering effectiveness are substantially and very statistically significantly less effective than a loose-fitting medical mask that is changed regularly and has a 56% filtering effectiveness.
My take on the mask wearing was that it was mostly to protect people other than the wearer. And it looks like the articles citing the study you posted are also pro-mask. Are you a doctor, or just better at understanding data than they are?
Re: (Score:2)
As mentioned above, this is very significant since both loose-fitting medical masks and cloth masks offe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Participants in the cloth mask group laundered their mask at least daily.
Participants in the medical mask arm were supplied with two masks daily for each 8h shift (4 hours per mask).
Participants in the control group changed their medical mask after each patient (no statistically significant change from the medical mask group)
It's easy to give the common CDC/media interpretation the benefit of the doubt and assume the medical mask group had some s
Re: (Score:2)
You've misunderstood the point of this paper entirely; Both tight-fitting cloth masks, laundered to hospital standards every 4 or 8 hours, with 3% filtering effectiveness are substantially and very statistically significantly less effective than a loose-fitting medical mask that is changed regularly and has a 56% filtering effectiveness.
I think you're underestimating the fit of a medical mask in a study that excludes people with facial hair; even if the medical masks have 15% leakage, that still only lowers the total filtration from 56% to ~37%. It's still doing quite a bit of filtering.
Both of these masks have very poor filtering capacity compared to an N95 or N100 mask (with 95% or 100% filtering effectiveness). The paper considers several reasons for the poor results of the cloth mask: persistent warm/moist environment or more fiddling/handling a cloth mask. In any case, because both types of masks have very poor filtering effectiveness, your "viral load" conjecture is not a strong argument. (the medical researchers who wrote this article also did not consider such a hypothesis)
Very poor filtering is not none, though. They didn't exclude the possibility that the filtration difference mattered; they just could not find any evidence that the surgical masks were useful, and thus assumed that the cloth masks made things worse. And
Re: (Score:2)
Nicely said, including the "Perhaps the CDC is being slightly silly regarding the use within your household household bit".
Re: (Score:2)
As should you!
A "cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with [loose-fitting] medical masks in healthcare workers...
Where's the control group? You know, no masks at all. Which is the point of this thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good news, everyone! (Score:5, Funny)
We could just use a group of volunteers, this thread alone tells me there's plenty of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, thinking about it, it's probably not going to work. Most of them have some underlying "medical condition" that fortunately only makes them unable to wear masks.
Re: (Score:2)
Masks and face shields are even good to wear when you're in your own home.
Never attribute to malice that which is more easily explained by incompetence.
We're a society on the decline. We could halt and reverse this decline if we put a little god damn effort into addressing it. But that isn't possible as long as we remain in denial of it. It's like we're on a leaky boat, a few people are bailing it out, the rest are drinking seawater and pissing in our faces.
Re: (Score:2)
The Vietnam study that you quote was sponsored by 3M, mask division. Other than that, I don't think it's generally disputed that medical masks work better than cloth masks; the relevant question is whether cloth masks reduce the transmission enough (compared to no masks) to lower the Covid-19 reproduction number to below-1 level. For that, you need to compare cloth masks to no masks. Unfortunately, in the quoted study:
The control group was asked to continue with their normal practices, which may or may not have included mask wearing.
(...)
Owing to a very high level of mask use in the control arm, we were unable to determine whether the differences between the medical and cloth mask arms were due to a protective effect of medical masks or a detrimental effect of cloth masks.
Another issue is that the article fails to describe the cloth masks used other than very g
Re: (Score:2)
Citation? Says who? You? You're stating this as i
Re: (Score:2)
Your study is about general respiratory illnesses in a hospital setting, and shows that while not as effective as proper clinical masks more basic masks do still have some effect.
Your link is misrepresented too, it only recommends wearing a mask at home when there are people who have COVID-19 there, i.e. if you get it try not to give it to your family too.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't my study and it isn't about general respiratory illness. Rather it's a study of three measures:
(futher, I asserted that this "gold standard" cluster randomized trial shows that cloth masks are statistically significantly detrimental to your health, as compared to various controls)
Re: (Score:2)
Your further assertion is misleading. The control group was following normal mask-wearing practices, which included mostly people wearing medical-grade masks. There was no comparison between wearing a cloth mask and not wearing a mask.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
From your link [emphasis added]:
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs).
. . .
Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.
That has nothing to do with using a cloth mask to reduce dispersion of particles from the mask-wearer's mouth and nose in order to reduce the potential for infecting of other people, which, along with staying 6 feet apart, is the main thing now being recommended to slow the spread of C
Re: (Score:2)
Ridiculous. There's no data to back up this conjecture. I've been fending off logical fallacies left and right in this thread! In this case, you've simply used a more complex logical fallacy: Faulty generalization / hasty generalization and fallacy of illicit transference. Copying a few out-of-context snippets, and adding some bold tags does not make a robust argument. Disregarding the statistically significant results because of a few implementation details
Re: (Score:2)
There is substantial "gold standard" evidence that cloth masks cause substantial harm.
A single study with no (maskless) control group.
Your definition of substantial is, er, not very.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not me! I'm agonna do Cl2 + H2O H+ + Cl + HClO!
Re: (Score:2)
"Perhaps my memory is hazy, but weren't more of us able to think critically just a few years ago?"
Also, no :)
Re:Good news, everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump's mistake was making that statement in front of a poster talking about disinfectants, right after a speech about disinfecting things.
Maybe he didn't mean to suggest drinking bleach, but his rambling and unclear statements in that setting were bound to mislead. Sure enough afterwards there was a spike in people enquiring about drinking disinfectants and in being hospitalized after trying.
Part of being a good leader in times of crisis is giving a clear, unambiguous message that everyone can understand.
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing how often this subtle point is ignored. Let's assume that Trump is 100% serious and correct every time he says he was being sarcastic and joking. Well time to call for his resignation for making jokes during a fucking serious press conference amid a national crisis.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather use N2O. Even if it doesn't work, at least I'll enjoy it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sarcastic. In a press conference. By the POTUS.
Does this buffoon know what office he has? I mean, if you didn't know him, you could take him serious and god help us if someone relevant, e.g. the head of another state, would do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Deadly Censorship (Score:5, Interesting)
In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by Section 230, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You are imagining that when a publisher declines to publish anything, no matter how dumb or dangerous, that they then become the speaker ("information content provider") of everything else on their platform and subject to liability.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people seem to confuse Section 230 with Common Carrier rules for some reason.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people seem to confuse Section 230 with Common Carrier rules for some reason.
Some of them are blithering idiots, some of them are disingenuous manipulators, and there is substantial overlap between these two groups. Not sure what that part of the venn diagram is labeled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And who determines what is false and what is tr (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the thing: there really is an objective, real world out there. When trump says that you can fly, go ahead, jump off a skyscraper. It's not going to end well for you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That is a serious problem. Lots of information which is not wrong, but which does not agree with the official narrative is taken down and accounts are cancelled.
This is equivalent to Catholic book burning and actions against Copernicus, because his account of things went against the Papal sanctioned narrative.
I had posts deleted for doing nothing more than pointing to a CDC graph which doesn't support the narrative.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Too bad scientists don't run Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The colour? The CDC graph shows the children deaths as a thin blue line down at the bottom. That is their colour, not mine.
Do you mean the fact that Covid19 disproportionately affects Blacks, Arabs and Asians? I work in the MENA region. It is a serious problem. Deleting posts that point out this problem and that further research is needed, is irresponsible.
Re:I mean, except for the fact that Copernicus (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Color commentary is a commonly used term.
Canada and the United States
Commentary teams typically feature one professional commentator describing the passage of play, and another, usually a former player or coach, providing supplementary input as the game progresses. The color commentator will usually restrict his input to periods when the ball or puck is out of play or there is no significant action on the field and will defer to the main commentator whenever there is a shot on goal or other significant event, sometimes resulting in their being talked-over or cut short by the primary commentator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
3) Based on the preceding, you were probably also wrong about whatever you were saying about covid-19.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Run your website all you want, if you mention it elsewhere, and they decide you've published hate speech or misleading/false information, they will delete your mentions. No one will know. Your website will be will be performing very well, though, with excellent response times to virtually no requests.
It would not be free speech if 'they' let you print your flyers, and then took them off the shelves, tore them off the church door, burned them. These platforms can censor as they wish they only can be held acc
Re: (Score:2)
Reality doesn't care about political ideology. If only one party is ever criticised in an open democracy and that party happens to be at odds with much of the rest of the world and their own health experts then maybe you should question the party rather than the motivations of others.
Re:And who determines what is false and what is tr (Score:5, Informative)
We have came up with a scientific process to help determine truths from lies. We call it the Scientific Process.
However short of that there are some other factors.
1. What do the majority of the experts say? Experts are people who spent a good portion of their lives looking at studying thinking about a particular problem. Tend to have a better insight than us who are not experts in that field, and may just have a High School 3 day lesson on that topic.
1. A. Conspiracies that all these experts are being paid off to give false testimony is not a good repute to their claims. If such an expert can find solid evidence of the contrary they would often make much more fame and money showing everyone else is wrong. As well the evidence can speak for itself and be studied and debated around the world. Most of these experts seem to be living a modest middle class lifestyle so it doesn't seem like they are getting that much in terms of conspiracy cash.
1. B. Experts around the world are not All American, and many Scientists around the world don't give a Rats Ass (even the ones who research Rodents digestive systems) about Republican vs Democrat.
2. There is a trail of data. Not some vague I think I heard it somewhere, Or when pressed unable to remember. You can search for a topic, and you get links to groups who did research, you can then drill down further and even see the raw data, and if you are inclined you can take hours and days to see that they had made a good conclusion.
3. The focus of the argument. When someone has a strong argument it is narrowly focused eg. giving good numbers behind and what is expected. Vs general broad arguments like they are taking away our freedoms.
Re: (Score:2)
Mmm. We are at 745,960 deaths atm, en route to a million. This will put it squarely in the middle of the pack of historic deaths from pandemics. We can agree to disagree about the definition of "minor disease", I suppose.
Re: And who determines what is false and what is t (Score:5, Informative)
See this BBC article: https://www.bbc.com/future/art... [bbc.com]
Now, more than 300 studies from around the world have found a prevalence of neurological abnormalities in Covid-19 patients, including mild symptoms like headaches, loss of smell (anosmia) and tingling sensations (arcoparasthesia), up to more severe outcomes such as aphasia (inability to speak), strokes and seizures. This is in addition to recent findings that the virus, which has been largely considered to be a respiratory disease, can also wreak havoc on the kidneys, liver, heart, and just about every organ system in the body.
Re: (Score:3)
You better alert all these medical professionals and scientists that they're completely wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the demon sperm woman?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And who determines what is false and what is t (Score:4, Interesting)
I tend to compare it to World War 2, excess mortality for US Americans is pretty much on par with it.
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to compare it to World War 2, excess mortality for US Americans is pretty much on par with it.
The big difference is that coronavirus is killing mainly old people. In America, WWII killed mainly young men who would be of reproductive age. In many US states, half or more of the deaths were in nursing homes and were people who were going to die in the next couple of years at any rate.
Here are the raw numbers:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/... [cdc.gov]
Last week, we had 7 CV deaths in the 44 & under age range, and 494 in the 45 & up age range. That's a *very* different distribution than a war has, and w
Re: And who determines what is false and what is t (Score:4, Insightful)
So, in other words, the generation that fought WW2 gets fucked again?
Well, to be fair, it also hits the Korea and Vietnam generation. Both have by now a higher casualty number from this than during the wars.
Re: (Score:2)
So, in other words, the generation that fought WW2 gets fucked again?
Well, to be fair, it also hits the Korea and Vietnam generation. Both have by now a higher casualty number from this than during the wars.
Yeah, all of them.
Re: And who determines what is false and what is t (Score:5, Informative)
And that is with only about 1/2 year of covid-19 pandemic. Currently the second wave is emerging and a lot of countries see a massive acceleration towards much higher rates than earlier in this year. Total cases doubled in the past two months, increasing exponentially. Deaths rise at a more steady pace and will probably reach TB levels in just a couple of months (still not a full year from the start of the pandemic).
And just to make it perfectly clear, the rate of people being infected and people dying is still increasing. Which means that every month we get more extra cases and deaths.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that the (almost general purpose) BCG vaccine has something to do with it. Several studies have now published their results - some googling will find them. The countries of Ye Olde CCCP have a Covid19 death rates less than 1/100th of the USA.
So if you don't have a BCG scar on your left shoulder, then maybe you should get it. The specific SARS-Cov-2 vaccines which will only be available next year, may not be any better.
From the world's most trustworthy news channel: https://edition.cnn.com/20 [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:3)
'very minor disease' ...and your post is already marked as flame bait.
Linking to this official USA CDC graph, which shows that children are not much affected, can get the whole thread killed: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/... [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I can see here is that it doesn't kill children at the same rate as it does adults. What I can't see is how many children are affected at all and how many have lasting effects from the disease that we'll have to pay for in the long run.
Re: And who determines what is false and what is t (Score:5, Insightful)
One problem is that the media focus on positive tests - the so called case number.
The media focuses on reporting things people want to know about. Those things may not be relevant, but if they get eyeballs, then they are reported. But the media is not focused on reporting positive tests. They are perfectly happy to report on the number of deaths. They do that every day. YOU are focused on the media reporting the positive tests.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know what a positive test means, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
You run Facebook?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Censorship applies to governments, not private entities. Do you honestly demand that a private corporation is required to offer you a platform and has no say in whether you may use their resources to broadcast your message?
Think twice before answering this, because the implications go way beyond this petty squabbling about masks.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook can censor stuff. But that sentence can be taken in two different ways, and they are both correct. Censorship is illegal when it's done by government. When it's done on, by, and for a private platform, it's legal. And S.230 of the CDA is a recognition that it is also sometimes necessary, and provides for this necessity.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
the Catholic Church is the modern version of the Catholic Church
New snake-oil peddlers, same as the old snake-oil peddlers. The only difference is that they don't run everything any more, so they have to be slightly more circumspect. Obviously they still have substantial power since they can still manage to relocate their child molesters around the world. They make Epstein look like Barney.
Re: DIAF, BeauHD (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm certain that college degree is in a relevant field? It's not in biology or statistics, that much I do know by now.
Americans are dying at a rate comparable to World War 2 combat casualties right now. If you don't consider this a dangerous level, you might want to sign up with your Army, they need expendable people.
Re: (Score:2)
the big tech monopolies have now decided what is true and what isn't, and what you're allowed to see and what you arent! Welcome to the nightmare dystopia.
No, you still decide what you see and what you don't. If you don't like Facebook, don't go there.
There are websites dedicated to all sorts of whacko conspiracy theories. I'm sure you can find the right one for you.